DOCSLIB.ORG

Private Lands Conservation in St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Books, Reports, and Studies Resources, Energy, and the Environment 2004 Private Lands Conservation in St. Vincent and the Grenadines Julie Truelsen University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Estates and Trusts Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Land Use Law Commons, Legislation Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, Tax Law Commons, Water Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Citation Information Julie Truelsen, Private Lands Conservation in St. Vincent and the Grenadines (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). JULIE TRUELSON, PRIVATE LANDS CONSERVATION IN ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. AVAILABLE ONLINE PRIVATE LANDS CONSERVATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES A Country Report by the Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law September 2004 Sponsored by The Nature Conservancy Primary Author: Julie Truelsen;· NRLC Research Assistant KGW [email protected]~.edu 5046 • T78 2004 Private Lands Conservation in St. Vincent and the Grenadines A Report by the Natural Resources Law Center University of Colorado School of Law September 2004 Primary Author: Julie Truelsen, NRLC Research Assistant E-mail: [email protected] 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Brief Questions ............................................................................................................1 Introduction..................................................................................................................4 I. Relevant Background ...........................................................................................4 A. Relevant History ............................................................................................4 B. Government....................................................................................................5 C. Legal Authority..............................................................................................6 II. Rights and Restrictions Pertaining to Land Tenure in St. Vincent......................7 A. History and Current Overview of Land Tenure............................................7 B. Predominant Types of Land Tenure in St. Vincent ......................................9 C. General Rights and Restrictions on Land Use ............................................10 1. Government Control and Acquisition of Private Lands.......................11 2. Provisions Concerning Public Lands that Affect Private Owners.......13 III. Land Administration in St. Vincent ....................................................................15 A. Institutional Framework...............................................................................15 B. Land Transfer...............................................................................................17 C. Land Registration.........................................................................................19 D. Establishing Clear Title ...............................................................................23 E. Dispute Resolution.......................................................................................25 IV. Legal Tools for Private Lands Conservation .....................................................28 A. Conservation Easements..............................................................................29 1. Appurtenant Conservation Easements..................................................31 2. Conservation Easements in Gross ........................................................35 3. The Uniform Conservation Easement Act ...........................................36 B. Easements in St. Vincent .............................................................................37 C. Real Covenants ............................................................................................40 D. Equitable Servitudes ....................................................................................42 E. Profits à Prendre...........................................................................................44 F. Purchased Development Rights...................................................................45 G. Leases, “Leaseback” Agreements, and Reserved Life Interests.................46 V. Conservation Legislation and Incentives ...........................................................47 A. The Forest Act..............................................................................................47 B. The Forest Resource Conservation Act.......................................................48 C. Tax Incentives Under the UCEA.................................................................51 D. Tax Incentives in St. Vincent.......................................................................52 E. Additional Relevant Statutes .......................................................................53 Bibliography ..............................................................................................................55 2 BRIEF QUESTIONS 1. What legal tools are in place for the purpose of achieving private lands conservation? Parliament has enabled private landowners to donate or use their land for conservation purposes through the Forests Act and the Forest Resources Conservation Act, as well as through a provision of the Town and Country Planning Act known as a Tree Preservation Order. Provisions of the Land Tax Act and language expressed in the Duties and Taxes (Exemption in the Public Interest) Act appear to make it possible to introduce tax incentives and exemptions encouraging private landowners to devote their property to conservation purposes. Both of these statutes seem to allow some forgiveness in the payment of taxes by a private citizen who is carrying out a public good. This report recommends that conservationists use these instruments to engage in private lands conservation. However, these devices are currently seldom employed due to both a lack of education among private landowners concerning their availability and the inability of many private landowners to afford the registration of their land in order to obtain secure title (unregistered land is prevalent in St. Vincent). 2. What legal tools are recognized by the legal system of St. Vincent and are capable of being used for private lands conservation? While easements are recognized under St. Vincent law, conservation easements are not explicitly recognized by the existing legal system—Parliament has yet to provide legislative authority for conservation easements; and English common law presents serious difficulties to the goal of using negative easements appurtenant, negative easements in gross, or restrictive covenants for conservation purposes. However, equitable servitudes could be used for this purpose. Equitable 1 servitudes are generally not recognized at law, and are enforceable only if equitable considerations demand their enforcement. Although certain legal duties and processes affecting private citizens could be restructured and used as incentives for private landowners (such as property taxes), the use of such incentives would require Parliament to pass an enabling statute. Other possible tools for private lands conservation include leases, leasebacks, and profits à prendre. 3. Given the legal authorities governing land tenure, what novel legal tools could be introduced to achieve the goal of private lands conservation? This report recommends that conservationists encourage St. Vincent’s Parliament to pass a conservation easement statute similar to those employed in the United States—and which are modeled after the Uniform Conservation Easement Act (UCEA). By adopting legislation based on the UCEA, numerous U.S. states have eliminated the common law impediments to conservation easements—impediments that are present in the existing St. Vincent legal system. Specifically, the UCEA provides that a conservation easement is valid even though: (1) it is not appurtenant to an interest in real property; (2) it can be or has been assigned to another holder; (3) it is not of a character that has been recognized traditionally at common law; (4) it imposes a negative burden; (5) it imposes affirmative obligations upon the owner of an interest in the burdened property or upon the holder; (6) the benefit does not touch or concern real property; or (7) there is no privity of estate or of contract. A unique feature of the Act is the “third-party enforcement right.” Under the Act, an easement may empower an entity other than an immediate holder to enforce its terms so long as the third party is a charitable organization or governmental body eligible to be a holder. 2 4. What unique challenges does St. Vincent present to the goal of private lands conservation? It may prove difficult to convince small landholders in St. Vincent to engage in private
Recommended publications
  • The Anti-Lien: Another Security Interest in Land*

    The Anti-Lien: Another Security Interest in Land*

    The Anti-Lien: Another Security Interest in Land* Uriel Reichmant The law recognizes various security interests in land, which are de- signed to provide two distinct advantages over unsecured interests: the right to priority over general creditors in bankruptcy proceedings, and the right to satisfy the debt from a specified parcel of property. This article proposes recognition of an intermediate concept between secured and unsecured debt: an interest in land that secures to some extent the repayment of a debt, but does not possess the twin characteristics of full security interests. This interest in land, the "anti-lien,"1 is a preventive measure; the debtor's power of alienation and power to grant another security interest are suspended while the debt remains outstanding. The anti-lien creditor has no powers or rights other than this passive rem- edy; for all other purposes, he is treated as a simple debt creditor. The few cases that have dealt with contracts containing anti-lien re- strictions have limited the analysis to a narrow question: did the con- tract create an equitable lien (that possesses the characteristics of a traditional security interest) or merely a personal obligation? Framing the question in this way eliminated consideration of the anti-lien alter- native-an alternative that is potentially useful when a regular security interest is unavailable or economically impractical. This paper attempts to explain deficiencies in the application of the equitable lien analysis to the anti-lien situation and argues the case for the anti-lien concept. Just a decade ago, documents evidencing an anti-lien approach were widely used in California.
  • Contracts Becomes in the Purchaser with Notice a Specific Duty to Perform the Covenant

    Contracts Becomes in the Purchaser with Notice a Specific Duty to Perform the Covenant

    Sec. 3 PRIVATE ADJUSTMENTS S437 contracts becomes in the purchaser with notice a specific duty to perform the covenant. (2) The other theory explains the enforcement of restrictive equitable servitudes as an extension of the legal doctrine of negative easements to new situations. Few if any courts follow either the “contract” theory or the “property” theory of equitable servitudes consistently, but the general view that one takes of the theories may affect results. Thus, the fact that the English courts came not to apply Tulk to affirmative covenants and, as we shall see infra, p. S444, did not allow the benefit of equitable servitudes to be held in gross, may reflect [p*962] a “property” theory of equitable servitudes. In England, as we have seen supra, p. S418, the benefit of an easement may not be held in gross, and courts throughout the Anglo-American world have had difficulty with enforcing easements that compel the holder of the burdened land to do something. See note 3, supra. Other questions the answers to which might depend on whether one espoused a “contract” or a “property” theory of equitable servitudes are: (1) Is the original convenantor still bound on the contract after he or she has sold the land? (The original covenantor is bound as surety where the covenant is contained in a lease. See DKM3, p. 693. By and large, the original covenantor is not bound after he or she has conveyed away a fee estate. 2 A.L.P. § 9.18.) (2) What formalities must be followed in creating the covenant? (You will recall that the Statute of Frauds has different requirements for contracts concerning land and conveyances of interests in land.
  • Improvedforestharvesting and Reduced Impact Logging in Asia Pacific Region

    Improvedforestharvesting and Reduced Impact Logging in Asia Pacific Region

    STATE OF 111E ARI REl^ORI ON IMPROVEDFORESTHARVESTING AND REDUCED IMPACT LOGGING IN ASIA PACIFIC REGION PRE-PROJECT PPD 19/99 REV. itF) STRENGTHENING SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENTOF NATURAL FOREST IN ASIA-PASIFIC , Cover page: Skidding 45, Reduced Impact Logging Activities, " Berau Forest Management Project (BMFP) " Location: Petak 29, Swakelola Labanan, East Kalimantan, PT. In hutani I STATE OF 11/1E ARI REPORT ON IMPROVEDFORESTHARVESTING AND REDUCED IMPACT LOGGING IN ASIA PACIFIC REGION PRE-PROJECT PPD 19199 REV. I (F) STRENGTHENINGSUSTAINABLEMANAGEMENTOF (^)^ NATURAL FOREST IN ASIA-PASIFIC o ITTO I FOREWORD The Indonesia Ministry of Forestry, in its capacity as Task Manager for the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission's Ad Hoc Working Group on Sustainable Forest Management, with support from the International Tropical Timber Organization has implemented a pre-project focused on the application of the code of practice for forest harvesting in Asia- Pacific. The development objective of the pre-project PPD I 9199 Rev. , (F); "Strengthening Sustainable Management of Natural Forest in Asia-Pacific" is to promote the contribution of forest harvesting to sustainable management of tropical forest in Asia-Pacific countries. It is expected that after the pre-project completion the awareness of improves forest harvesting practices will have been significantly raised and political support for the implementation of the Code secured. To implement a comprehensive training programme and to operationalize demonstration sites for RIL implementation there is a need to understand the status of forest management particularly state of the art on forest harvesting in each Asia Pacific country. This state of the art report was prepared by Dr.
  • Tree Preservation Orders: a Guide to the Law and Good Practice

    Tree Preservation Orders: a Guide to the Law and Good Practice

    Tree Preservation Orders: A Guide to the Law and Good Practice On 5th May 2006 the responsibilities of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) transferred to the Department for Communities and Local Government. Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.communities.gov.uk Documents downloaded from the www.communities.gov.uk website are Crown Copyright unless otherwise stated, in which case copyright is assigned to Queens Printer and Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Office. Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: [email protected]. This publication is only available online via the Communities and Local Government website: www.communities.gov.uk Alternative formats under Disability Discrimination
  • Exhaustion and the Limits of Remote-Control Property

    Exhaustion and the Limits of Remote-Control Property

    Denver Law Review Volume 93 Issue 4 Symposium - Future World IP: Legal Article 7 Response to the Tech Revolution December 2020 Exhaustion and the Limits of Remote-Control Property Molly Shaffer Van Houweling Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Molly Shaffer Van Houweling, Exhaustion and the Limits of Remote-Control Property, 93 Denv. L. Rev. 951 (2016). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. EXHAUSTION AND THE LIMITS OF REMOTE-CONTROL PROPERTY MOLLY SHAFFER VAN HOUWELING t ABSTRACT In this Article I argue that intellectual property (IP) exhaustion should be understood against the backdrop of a long history of skepti- cism toward what I call "remote-control" property rights. IP is not the only field of law that gives remote rights-holders the ability to constrain the behavior of other people to use things in their rightful possession. Tangible property law-in particular the law of servitudes-features similar mechanisms, but hems them in with doctrinal limitations. Look- ing to this body of law helps us more clearly to recognize remote-control property's benefits and costs and, thus, to articulate a rationale for IP exhaustion as a limitation on remote-control IP. At the same time, re- mote-control IP is special. Restrictions on the use of works of creativity and invention have implications for the promotion of progress of science and the useful arts.
  • Protecting Artistic Property with the Equitable Servitude Doctrine Thomas W

    Protecting Artistic Property with the Equitable Servitude Doctrine Thomas W

    Marquette Law Review Volume 46 Article 4 Issue 4 Spring 1963 Protecting Artistic Property With the Equitable Servitude Doctrine Thomas W. Bertz Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Thomas W. Bertz, Protecting Artistic Property With the Equitable Servitude Doctrine, 46 Marq. L. Rev. 430 (1963). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol46/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROTECTING ARTISTIC PROPERTY WITH THE EQUITABLE SERVITUDE DOCTRINE* TiOMAS W. BERTZ** Law like nature abhors a vacuum. And if there be no law fostering and protecting the business interests of a growing segment of indus- try, the courts will readily adapt existing legal doctrines to meet the commercial needs of an industrial innovation. This principle of law has asserted itself repeatedly and the time may be ripe for it to assert itself again. The vacuum, so to speak, is the void in the law caused by the inadequate coverage of the Copyright Act; the filling force is the resurgence of the doctrine of equitable servitudes as applied to chattels. Although the doctrine has existed for over a century, the employ- ment of it to enforce restrictions placed upon personalty in the mer- cantile world has been judicially restrained. The infrequent use of the doctrine was caused by the courts' rejection of it as an enforceable equitable device and by their past refusal to give full recognition to it.
  • CREATING an AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW: ALIENABILITY and ITS LIMITS in AMERICAN HISTORY Claire Priest

    CREATING an AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW: ALIENABILITY and ITS LIMITS in AMERICAN HISTORY Claire Priest

    CREATING AN AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW: ALIENABILITY AND ITS LIMITS IN AMERICAN HISTORY Claire Priest Contact Information: Northwestern University School of Law 357 East Chicago Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 503-4470 Email: [email protected] Acknowledgements: ∗Associate Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law. B.A., J.D., Ph.D. Yale University. I would like to thank James McMasters of Northwestern’s Law Library for his help in finding copies of many of the primary sources used to write this Article. For extremely valuable comments and suggestions, I would like to thank Bernard Bailyn, Stuart Banner, Kenworthey Bilz, Charlotte Crane, David Dana, Michele Landis Dauber, Christine Desan, Tony A. Freyer, Morton J. Horwitz, Daniel Hulsebosch, Stanley N. Katz, Daniel M. Klerman, Naomi Lamoreaux, Charles W. McCurdy, Edmund S. Morgan, Janice Nadler, Sarah Pearsall, Dylan Penningroth, George L. Priest, Richard J. Ross, Emma Rothschild, Dhananjai Shivakumar, Kenneth L. Sokoloff, Vicky Saker Woeste, Gavin Wright and the seminar participants at Northwestern University School of Law’s Faculty Workshop, Stanford Law School’s Faculty Workshop, UCLA’s Legal History Colloquium and Economic History Workshop, NYU’s Legal History Colloquium, the University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law’s Faculty Workshop, the Chicago Legal History Seminar, the American Society for Legal History’s Annual Meeting, the University of Illinois College of Law’s Faculty Workshop, the Omohundro Institute of Early American History’s Annual Conference, and Harvard University’s Conference on Atlantic Legalities. The Julius Rosenthal Fund at Northwestern University School of Law provided generous research support. CREATING AN AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW: ALIENABILITY AND ITS LIMITS IN AMERICAN HISTORY This Article analyzes an issue central to the economic and political development of the early United States: laws protecting real property from the claims of creditors.
  • Property Law for the Anthropocene Era

    Property Law for the Anthropocene Era

    PROPERTY LAW FOR THE ANTHROPOCENE ERA John G. Sprankling* Human activity has replaced nature as the principal force shaping our planet. As a result, we stand at the dawn of a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. Fundamental changes in American law will be required to mitigate and adapt to the negative environmental impacts produced in this new era. These changes will go far beyond the traditional scope of environmental law to encompass property law and other subjects. This Article analyzes how American property law should respond to the Anthropocene challenge. It demonstrates the need to transition from a property law system based on stability to a more dynamic system that accommodates large- scale environmental disruption. It argues that we must develop a new vision of ownership in which property rights are more flexible and less categorical than in the past, and that we must implement this transition in a manner that does not violate the Takings Clause. The Article proposes four overarching principles to guide the evolution of our property law system in the coming decades. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 738 I. THE ANTHROPOCENE CHALLENGE .................................................................... 740 II. THE ENGLISH PROPERTY LAW FOUNDATION ................................................... 743 A. Static Conception of Property .................................................................... 743 B. Rigidity and Absolutism
  • The Moral Paradox of Adverse Possession: Sovereignty and Revolution in Property Law Larissa Katz

    The Moral Paradox of Adverse Possession: Sovereignty and Revolution in Property Law Larissa Katz

    Document generated on 10/01/2021 12:15 p.m. McGill Law Journal Revue de droit de McGill The Moral Paradox of Adverse Possession: Sovereignty and Revolution in Property Law Larissa Katz Volume 55, Number 1, March 2010 Article abstract On what grounds can we justify the transformation of squatters into owners? URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/039836ar To understand the moral significance of adverse possession, the author DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/039836ar proposes an analogy. Much of the moral analysis of adverse possession has proceeded on the basis that adverse possessors are land thieves. The author See table of contents first explains why the analogy of adverse possessor to land thief is misleading. Then, she argues that there is a much closer analogy between adverse possession and revolution or, more precisely, a bloodless coup d’état. The Publisher(s) recognition of the adverse possessor’s (private) authority solves the moral problem created by an agendaless object just as the recognition of the existing McGill Law Journal / Revue de droit de McGill government’s (public) authority, whatever its origin, solves the moral problem of a stateless people. The morality of adverse possession, seen this way, does ISSN not turn on any particularized evaluation of the squatter’s deserts or her uses of the land. The author thus does not propose that adverse possession is 0024-9041 (print) justified in the same way that some argue a conscientious revolutionary is 1920-6356 (digital) justified in resisting an oppressive or otherwise unjust sovereign. Rather, the morality of adverse possession is found where we might least expect it: in its Explore this journal positivist strategy of ratifying the claims to authority of a squatter without regard to the substantive merits of her agenda or her personal virtue.
  • The Isabella Plantation Conservation Management Plan February 2012

    The Isabella Plantation Conservation Management Plan February 2012

    The Isabella Plantation Conservation Management Plan February 2012 Isabella Plantation Landscape Conservation Management Plan 2012 Prepared by The Royal Parks January 2012 The Royal Parks Rangers Lodge Hyde Park London W2 2UH Tel: 020 7298 2000 Fax: 020 7402 3298 [email protected] i Isabella Plantation Conservation Management Plan CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 3 Richmond Park ............................................................................................................................................. 3 The Management Plan ................................................................................................................................ 4 Aims of the Isabella Plantation Management Plan ................................................................................ 4 Structure of the Plan .................................................................................................................................. 6 2.0 GENERAL AND MANAGEMENT CONTEXT ............................... 7 Location ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Existing TRP Management Framework ................................................................................................ 10 Management Structure of Richmond Park .......................................................................................... 10 Landscape Management
  • Sheffield Trees and Woodlands Strategy 2016-2030

    Sheffield Trees and Woodlands Strategy 2016-2030

    Sheffield Trees and Woodlands Strategy 2016-2030 Sheffield City Council September 2016 Consultation Draft Key Strategic Partners Forest Schools Forestry Commission Froglife National Trust Natural England Peak District National Park Authority Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust Sheffield Green Spaces Forum Sheffield Hallam University Sheffield Local Access Forum Sheffield University Sorby Natural History Society South Yorkshire Forest Partnership Sport England Woodlands Trust Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1. Context ............................................................................................................................................ 2 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 What the Strategy Covers ....................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Legislation, Policy and Strategy Linkages ................................................................................ 3 1.4 Our Vision and Aims ................................................................................................................ 3 1.5 Strategy Monitoring and Review ............................................................................................ 4 1.6 Additional Documents ...........................................................................................................
  • Owning the Center of the Earth John G

    Owning the Center of the Earth John G

    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2008 Owning the Center of the Earth John G. Sprankling Pacific cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyarticles Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation John G. Sprankling, Owning the Center of the Earth, 55 UCLA L. Rev. 979 (2008). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OWNING THE CENTER OF THE EARTH * John G. Sprankling How far below the earth’s surface do property rights extend? The con- ventional wisdom is that a landowner holds title to everything between the surface and the center of the earth. This Article is the first legal scholarship to challenge the traditional view. It demonstrates that the “center of the earth” theory is poetic hyperbole, not binding law. Broadly speaking, the deeper the disputed region, the less likely courts are to recognize the surface owner’s title. The emergence of new technologies for use of the deep subsurface—such as heat mining and carbon sequestration, both of which may help mitigate global climate change—requires that we develop a new model of subsurface owner- ship. Accordingly, this Article proposes and evaluates four alternative approaches to subsurface property rights. The preferred model would recognize the surface owner’s title for only 1000 feet downward.